Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
China Centre for Evidence-Based Traditional Chinese Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
BMJ Open. 2022 Aug 29;12(8):e060237. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060237.
To identify factors and assess to what extent they impact the magnitude of the treatment effect of acupuncture therapies across therapeutic areas.
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc, between 2015 and 2019.
The inclusion criteria were trials with a total number of randomised patients larger than 100, at least one patient-important outcome and one of two sets of comparisons.
The potential independent variables were identified by reviewing relevant literature and consulting with experts. We conducted meta-regression analyses with standardised mean difference (SMD) as effect estimate for the dependent variable. The analyses included univariable meta-regression and multivariable meta-regression using a three-level robust mixed model.
1304 effect estimates from 584 acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were analysed. The multivariable analyses contained 15 independent variables . In the multivariable analysis, the following produced larger treatment effects of large magnitude (>0.4): quality of life (difference of adjusted SMDs 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77), or pain (0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69), or function (0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61) vs major events. The following produced larger treatment effects of moderate magnitude (0.2-0.4): single-centred vs multicentred RCTs (0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66); penetration acupuncture vs non-penetration types of acupuncture (0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53); non-pain symptoms vs major events (0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.52). The following produced larger treatment effects of small magnitude (<0.2): high vs low frequency treatment sessions (0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35); pain vs non-pain symptoms (0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27); unreported vs reported funding (0.12, 95% CI 0 to 0.25).
Patients, clinicians and policy-makers should consider penetrating over non-penetrating acupuncture and more frequent treatment sessions when feasible and acceptable. When designing future acupuncture RCTs, trialists should consider factors that impact acupuncture treatment effects.
确定影响针灸疗法治疗效果大小的因素,并评估其影响程度。
2015 年至 2019 年间,我们检索了 Medline、Embase、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、中国知网、万方数据库、维普数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库。
纳入标准为总随机患者数大于 100 例、至少有 1 项患者重要结局指标和 2 组比较之一的试验。
通过回顾相关文献和咨询专家,确定了潜在的自变量。我们使用标准化均数差(SMD)作为因变量进行了荟萃回归分析。分析包括单变量荟萃回归和使用三级稳健混合模型的多变量荟萃回归。
对 584 项针灸随机对照试验(RCT)的 1304 个效应估计值进行了分析。多变量分析包含 15 个独立变量。在多变量分析中,以下因素产生了较大的大效应(>0.4):生活质量(调整 SMD 差值 0.51,95%CI 0.24 至 0.77)或疼痛(0.48,95%CI 0.27 至 0.69)或功能(0.41,95%CI 0.21 至 0.61)优于主要事件。以下因素产生了较大的中效应(0.2-0.4):单中心 RCT 优于多中心 RCT(0.38,95%CI 0.10 至 0.66);经皮针刺优于非经皮针刺(0.34,95%CI 0.15 至 0.53);非疼痛症状优于主要事件(0.32,95%CI 0.12 至 0.52)。以下因素产生了较小的小效应(<0.2):高频率治疗优于低频率治疗(0.19,95%CI 0.03 至 0.35);疼痛优于非疼痛症状(0.16,95%CI 0.04 至 0.27);未报告资金优于报告资金(0.12,95%CI 0 至 0.25)。
当可行和可接受时,患者、临床医生和决策者应考虑使用经皮针刺而非非经皮针刺,以及更频繁的治疗。在设计未来的针灸 RCT 时,试验人员应考虑影响针灸治疗效果的因素。